'99 Subaru Forester Build

[ihatemybike]

So, the Ultra Guage, how accurate is it?

It's not bad to start, but it allows you to adjust readings to be more accurate. I have mine report 4% more fuel usage than what the ECM says. In my vans this has proven to show just above actual fuel usage. You can also adjust the MPH that it displays for non-stock tire sizes.

 

[Ozarker]

Thanks Aaaron, having the correct speed for tires can be a big deal. Why would you adjust it to report a higher MPG?

Oversize tires almost got me a ticket in an Opel GT. LA Dupties stopped me, and before they could say a word I said; boy glad to see you guys, I was wondering if you could help me, can you shoot your radar on this so I can see how fast it's going accroding to the speedometer? I just got the car and I think it's off...

They just looked at me, then in that Lousiana draw, said they'd need to check it and asked for the key. They took turns driving it and after the fun they handed the keys back and told me to drive 10 miles an hour slower and I shouldn't have any problem! :wings: :smiley_drive:

 

[ihatemybike]

No, it's adjusted to show that it's burning 4% more fuel than what the computer reports, lowering MPG.

 

[casm]

Put some more trail time on the Forester, and am starting to get a better feel for its capabilities. Took some short videos yesterday on a couple of offshoot trails in the GWNF; this was a spur-of-the-moment solo run, so unfortunately I don't have any outside action shots. Brief explanations of what's going on are below each video.

Simple trail with a dip down into a small (rocky) stream, followed by a much steeper exit. The exit dips down again before levelling out. The tricky part here is traction on the exit; it's a loose surface over embedded rock.


Same as above, but run from the opposite direction.


Offshoot go-nowhere trail to a small parking area. Steep climb, dips, and ruts alternating from side-to-side in the direction of travel. Similar loose surface to the first two videos.


Same as above, but heading downhill instead of up.​

Considering that I'm still on what are primarily road tyres, I'm pretty happy with the performance through here - neither of those two spots are anything particularly difficult, but they're easy to lose traction on if you don't get it quite right. FWIW, without the Ironman springs I would've been banging and scraping in at least a couple of places, but another inch would definitely be useful.

In this kind of stuff the Forester does surprisingly well - better than I would have expected, frankly. Note that I was running the vehicle in first gear in the stock AWD mode; the lockup switch was not turned on. If you listen closely in the third video, you can hear a scraping noise when I'm about halfway up the hill and forward motion has stopped. This is the MPT reacting and kicking in the rear tyres; what you're hearing is them scrabbling on rock covered in loose dirt and gravel. To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly thrilled that it took as long as it did for it to do its thing, but it was effective.

At this point, I think the next area I'll address will be the tyres. They just need to be more aggressive than what's on there now. Having said that, within the limitations that this vehicle has, it is working out rather well for use in situations where even a stock Jeep, truck, or SUV would be overkill. Also, to illustrate briefly how much lift is actually on it:

It's difficult to tell that it's much different to stock, but if you compare the amount of spring visible in the wheelwells against a stock one, it's evident. My goal is to get the sills above the centreline of the axles, though, so another inch definitely would not go amiss.

Finally, I would like to make a polite request: can we please move the discussion about scangauges, etc. over to a more appropriate thread? I don't mind going off on tangents a bit (and as a longtime Opel GT fan was pleased to see one mentioned), but it's starting to overrun the thread a bit. Not upset with anyone, but understanding in this matter would be appreciated.

 

[casm]

Hm, two-and-a-half months since the last update. Well, here goes:

The Forester completed its cross-country trip (VA to Seattle by way of Los Angeles) with only one hitch: a dead battery in Las Vegas. The one that was in it when I got it looked ropey, but I decided to not replace it before I left. Guess I found out how much life was left in it :sombrero:

Anyway, stopped in Moab on the way out and fooled around for a day; note that the vehicle was exactly the same as shown above. Ran the following easy (meaning that I never had to use the 4WD lockup switch) trails:

White Rim Trail: not a problem up to the White Crack campground, but due to flooding there was no access for anyone past Potato Bottom. I only made it to White Crack after dark, so camped out there and headed back without continuing on to Potato Bottom the next day.

Gemini Bridges: fine out to the bridges, but there are steep sections to contend with. Uphill is fine, but descents are interesting in a couple of places due to the lack of a low range.

Potash: was able to make it up to the mesa and back.

There were a couple of other trails I basically followed until I could go no further. The only one in that regard that sticks in my head is Long Canyon Road off of Potash Road; there's a seriously steep uphill section (if approached from Potash Road) with an obstacle that a Forester will not make it over. There's also nowhere to turn around at the obstacle, so unless you're fond of backing up downhill don't go up there.

As for my overall impressions, allow me to preface them by saying that I don't want to give the impression that I think this is a bad vehicle. I don't. But there are tradeoffs compared to traditional 4x4s, and as I see it the three main ones are:

- Underbody clearance. Yes, you can get more ground clearance with tyres, springs, and spacers, but unless you're willing to lower the drivetrain away from the body you won't get more than a couple of extra inches of clearance - but because you're basically doing a body lift, any further ground clearance gains are going to be from the tyres alone. Obviously, this becomes involved. Completely doable, but then you're coming back to the cost/capability comparison.

- Lack of a low range. The final drive on these is already pretty low at 4.44:1 in the automatics, but even in first gear there's too much braking required on steep downhill sections. If it had even a mild (say, 1.3 to 1.5:1) low range, vehicle control on this type of terrain would be much improved.

- Fuel economy. It's better than my XJ was, but not astronomically so. Also, the tradeoff of less power (30bhp) and torque (70lb./ft.) in a vehicle that weighs almost the same limits its on-road flexibility - for example, I can't tow another vehicle with the Forester, and it rapidly becomes obvious when it's reaching the limits of the amount of passengers and/or cargo it can comfortably carry. Frankly, the fuel saving isn't great enough (in my opinion) to justify the loss of ability, but that's really something that comes down to personal needs and preferences.

Overall, it's a very good AWD car - but it is limited in its capabilities even when somewhat modified, and for what you would spend on buying one in decent shape and building it up you could have something else that's more capable off-road (and flexible on it) out of the box. Having said that, I do think that these should have come with a couple extra inches of lift on them as a factory option - while you won't be running it on the Camel Trophy anytime soon, it certainly makes it a more usable vehicle in mild off-road situations.

 

[TeufelHunden]

I have attempted some pretty steep sections in my Forester and made it up quite a few. When it gets really steep and rocky though, it just doesn't have the guts or clearance. It would greatly benefit having Low range, as staring off in steep sections would just kill the engine or spin the tires. The biggest downfall I have noticed is that lack of low range. I just finished doing an oil and transmission fluid change today. Being under the car got me thinking about a lift and some AT's again, or at least some Geolanders. I have averaged about 21.9-22.9 mpg overall since I bought my car and that is over a span of 30,000 miles. The best mileage I ever got was coming down out of Prescott Az driving back to San Diego, I got 27mpg. That was the highest I have ever seen. The norm for highway with me driving it is about 23-24, trying to keep it around 65-70mph. I have never seen it below 20mpg though. I keep up on my maintenance and even with 191,000 miles and the original Cat, it smogged as good as a new car.

 

[casm]

I have attempted some pretty steep sections in my Forester and made it up quite a few. When it gets really steep and rocky though, it just doesn't have the guts or clearance. It would greatly benefit having Low range, as staring off in steep sections would just kill the engine or spin the tires. The biggest downfall I have noticed is that lack of low range.

Understood, and agreed. FWIW, I never had much in the way of trouble getting up a steep section - it was control on the descent that gave me a couple of brown-seat moments. This was at its worst on anything that was a loose surface over a hard one, which was a fair chunk of the trails at Moab. I also need to figure out a decent ABS defeat for exactly those kinds of situations.

I just finished doing an oil and transmission fluid change today. Being under the car got me thinking about a lift and some AT's again, or at least some Geolanders. I have averaged about 21.9-22.9 mpg overall since I bought my car and that is over a span of 30,000 miles. The best mileage I ever got was coming down out of Prescott Az driving back to San Diego, I got 27mpg. That was the highest I have ever seen. The norm for highway with me driving it is about 23-24, trying to keep it around 65-70mph. I have never seen it below 20mpg though. I keep up on my maintenance and even with 191,000 miles and the original Cat, it smogged as good as a new car.

Oh, yeah. I completely forgot to mention fuel economy in any sort of meaningful way.

I started out averaging about 21mpg; this was with mostly town driving being the norm. Cross-country, I only managed about 22mpg with the cruise control and A/C normally on and typically doing 70-75mph. Recently, my mixed fuel economy began tanking down into the 17-18mpg range and I experienced a couple of misfires plus a CEL.

This turned out to be a compound issue: the airflow sensor was on its last legs, as was the ignition coil pack. Replaced both of those with OEM parts and saw an improvement, but not as much of one as I would have suspected. Replaced the fuel filter (again with an OEM unit) yesterday, and it's almost like a new vehicle again. I'll dig into the spark plugs and ignition wires this weekend; as I can't find any evidence that they were taken care of when the damaged valve, etc. was repaired, my suspicion is that at least one plug may be a weak and/or damaged carryover from that particular round of fun and games.

 

[TeufelHunden]

Honestly with your wires and plugs, just replace them. If you haven't done it, it probably needs them anyways. I had a misfire also, plug wires cleaned it right up. I have started getting a clunking in the front end though, it's either struts or the HLA bushing on the rear of the front control arm. If you need to do balljoints, they are cake.

 

[CMiller]

I have attempted some pretty steep sections in my Forester and made it up quite a few. When it gets really steep and rocky though, it just doesn't have the guts or clearance. It would greatly benefit having Low range, as staring off in steep sections would just kill the engine or spin the tires. The biggest downfall I have noticed is that lack of low range. I just finished doing an oil and transmission fluid change today. Being under the car got me thinking about a lift and some AT's again, or at least some Geolanders. I have averaged about 21.9-22.9 mpg overall since I bought my car and that is over a span of 30,000 miles. The best mileage I ever got was coming down out of Prescott Az driving back to San Diego, I got 27mpg. That was the highest I have ever seen. The norm for highway with me driving it is about 23-24, trying to keep it around 65-70mph. I have never seen it below 20mpg though. I keep up on my maintenance and even with 191,000 miles and the original Cat, it smogged as good as a new car.

There are options for Foresters to have Low range. You could try to import an EJ low range gear box, shift linkage, and wiring from S. America or Australia, etc... Or you could get an adapter plate from a Washington company called SJR and put in the older Subaru dual range gear box from EA series cars like what I have. Then convert the front axles and rear drive line to match. There is a write up some where on the USMB or some of the Forester forums, a quick search should find something. Same sites would be good for a lift kit, but that will require bigger tires. If you want to keep the stock tire size because of gas mileage try going with a set of King Springs and strut spacers from a company here in Oregon called Primitive Racing. Just the springs alone will give you 1.5" lift and are 20% - 30% stiffer, suited for bearing the weight of a loaded overland rig. Pair that with another .5" strut spacer set up and you are on your way. Primitive also makes a great skidplate specific to most Subaru models which is a MUST going off road!

Hope this helps!

 

[casm]

There are options for Foresters to have Low range. You could try to import an EJ low range gear box, shift linkage, and wiring from S. America or Australia, etc... Or you could get an adapter plate from a Washington company called SJR and put in the older Subaru dual range gear box from EA series cars like what I have. Then convert the front axles and rear drive line to match.

Valid points, and certainly doable. The downside to this is that only the EA81/EA82 cars with manual transmissions received low range, so if you're talking about doing the conversion on a Forester with the 4EAT there's substantially more work involved. Not that it's not doable, but to the best of my knowledge Subaru never offered a low range on any of their automatics, so there are no real options for two pedals and low range. Also, if you're looking to retain AWD, the only way you can do that with a EA-series transaxle is to source one from (specifically) an EA82-era turbo RX coupé - I believe that was the only one offered with a selectably-locked centre diff; none of the others offered an AWD mode, but I could be wrong about that.

My best idea in this regard has been to use an electrically-activated divorced underdrive fed from the back of the transaxle - essentially, something similar to the Klune V, but engaged by a switch and solenoid. That wouldn't be cheap to manufacture, though, and would also require shortening the rear driveshaft to compensate for the length of the underdrive. However, the advantage to this approach is that it could be fitted to both manual and automatic models, but I doubt the demand is there to make them economically viable.

Same sites would be good for a lift kit, but that will require bigger tires.

There's a limitation on the SF Foresters of being able to go up one size and one size only with the stock struts - clearance between the tyre and spring perch is already pretty minimal, so choices are limited for larger-diameter tyres. My understanding is that using SG struts in an SF body can help with this problem, but as I don't know all the ins and outs of that particular conversion it really would be best to investigate what people have already done in that regard rather than taking my word for it.

If you want to keep the stock tire size because of gas mileage try going with a set of King Springs and strut spacers from a company here in Oregon called Primitive Racing. Just the springs alone will give you 1.5" lift and are 20% - 30% stiffer, suited for bearing the weight of a loaded overland rig. Pair that with another .5" strut spacer set up and you are on your way.

Also true, but at that height you'll also need rear trailing arm spacers in order to properly re-centre the rear wheels in the arches. I'm not aware of anyone currently manufacturing those, so they are a DIY item at present. There are also other issues with camber that need to be taken care of once you start getting up there, as well as stress on the CV axles.

FWIW, I'm considering adding a 1" spacer in on top of the Ironman springs sometime after the first of the year. However, it won't happen until I'm satisfied that I've got the kinks worked out to be able to run it at effectively 2.5" of lift - and given that the conventional wisdom is that 2" is the limit where drivetrain drops, etc. start being required, I may just end up tossing in some half-inch suspension spacers, make a set for the rear trailing arms, and call it done. We'll see what happens.

 

[MountainBiker]

Having said that, I'm setting an actual goal for this vehicle of being able to traverse the Mojave Road. I've done it in the Jeep, and think that there's potential in the Forester to be able to repeat that success. How much assistance it would need is something of an unknown (and travelling in a group would have to be a definite requirement, since I can think of at least two places it would likely need a strap), but it seems like that would be a good test of what it can be pushed out to do.

I did most of the MR with the Forester in stock condition with 215/65-16 Grabber AT2s, but there are some scary spots (crossing the river!) and some bumper rubbing/crashing onto the ground. Be sure to take care to keep that unprotected transmission pan from hitting the ground! Now, with swaybars removed, a 40mm lift and higher clearance bumpers, the whole road is no problem, except for that sometimes deep river crossing!

The 40mm lift is from SubaXtreme (no longer in production), has offsets to correct the suspension geometry, and no trailing arm spacers required. I wouldn't try to lift any further than this, based on some vibration I get from the front CV joints when the suspension is near full droop.

The MR is relatively easy road, and I admit that a modified Forester has to turn around on many roads, once you get to obstacles that are beyond the clearance capabilities, or requires lots of articulation.

Good Luck!

 

[casm]

I did most of the MR with the Forester in stock condition with 215/65-16 Grabber AT2s, but there are some scary spots (crossing the river!) and some bumper rubbing/crashing onto the ground. Be sure to take care to keep that unprotected transmission pan from hitting the ground! Now, with swaybars removed, a 40mm lift and higher clearance bumpers, the whole road is no problem, except for that sometimes deep river crossing!

Sounds about right. FWIW, the reason I picked the Mojave Road as a testbed for the Forester was because I did it back in '06 in the XJ, and that vehicle was overkill for it. We ran it from pretty much the Colorado River to almost all the way back to Barstow, and the one place where the XJ was the right vehicle for the trip was in crossing Soda Lake; that was its usual crust-on-the-soup consistency The river was completely dry, though - a combination of a late October trip and no real weather to speak of for a few weeks in advance took care of that.

The 40mm lift is from SubaXtreme (no longer in production), has offsets to correct the suspension geometry, and no trailing arm spacers required. I wouldn't try to lift any further than this, based on some vibration I get from the front CV joints when the suspension is near full droop.

Hm, interesting. I'm not having those issues at 35mm, but that just makes me wonder if I'm on the edge of where suspension and driveline angles start to get out of their comfort zone. I've filed it away for future reference

 

[casm]

Well... Crap.

Left Seattle at 10am on Tuesday to drive down to Los Angeles. Approximately 100 miles into the trip, the check engine light started flashing, power was down, and the idle was extremely rough. Pulled off the freeway in Chehalis and got out the code reader: cylinder #4 misfire. Swapped the plug leads between the #2 and #4 cylinders; the problem stayed on the #4 cylinder. I'd changed the spark plugs about 200 miles previously, so, figuring that one may have been defective, decided to swap the #2 and #4 plugs and see what happened. Unfortunately, the #4 spark plug was coated in oil and literally dripping gasoline; #2 was fine by comparison.

At this point I didn't even bother swapping the plugs and just made the decision to turn around and head back up to Seattle. Confirmed by borescope the next day: burned exhaust valve on the #4 cylinder. This is the same one that had gone out when I got the car, so it appears as though the driver's side head was not rebuilt correctly when the problem was first diagnosed a few months ago. My best guess at this point is that they replaced the burned valve but never checked the valve seats, which led to it failing again 9000 miles later.

There is a smell of gasoline from the oil filler, but as I have not yet drained the oil from the sump I don't know if gasoline has actually made its way in or if I'm just smelling the by-products of unburned fuel. The blowback is pretty awful with the engine running, so the latter is a distinct possibility. Either way, it's making me wary of just replacing the head and calling it good.

Summary: the car is back to square one (though with an extra 35mm of ground clearance). The good news: a friend of mine called me earlier to let me know about a '99 Legacy with 40,000 original miles on the clock his dad's auto salvage business had taken in. It was apparently in a side collision yesterday, so the carcass is still fresh. Assuming that the Legacy also has the SOHC motor that's in my Forester ('99 was a changeover year from DOHC to SOHC, so it's a crapshoot), it may end up being the donor vehicle for an engine swap. I'll know more on Sunday when I take a look at it.

 

[casm]

And, with that, the car is officially beyond economic repair. I'm looking at $4000-$5000 to fix it (don't have the time, space, or equipment to lay it up and take care of it myself), and its book value is around $4800. Just not worth it on a soon-to-be 13-year-old car.

I've got a guy who is interested in it as-is; I'm thinking I'll let it go to him for whatever I can get for it, put that towards another vehicle, and start over. Right now I'm thinking of trying this again, but with an SG-series model. This was actually the bodystyle I wanted to work with initially, but couldn't find one with the spec that I wanted at a price I was willing to pay. Unfortunately that'll mean car payments for a while, but I'll deal. In some ways the SG platform offers a little better flexibility in terms of suspension and tyres (as well as offering a slight power boost over the SF models), so this is at least something of a blessing in disguise. More on that when I know what's happening; need to find a car ASAP.

 

[Owyhee H]

Sorry to hear shes dead. Good luck finding a new ride. Shopping for cars can be exciting and scary at the same time. Im sure your next rig will take you on many great adventures.